Students should be consulted before university fee increment
May 25, 2011
I am writing in reference to the media reports (New Vision, February 14) citing a strike by Makerere University students in response to a proposed sh6m fee increment still under review by the Auditor General.
I am writing in reference to the media reports (New Vision, February 14) citing a strike by Makerere University students in response to a proposed sh6m fee increment still under review by the Auditor General.
This strike preceded an earlier student complaint over an unexplained internship fee of sh600,000. Why should we continue providing education expensively when countries like India are providing it cheaply?.
The question, however, is does it always have to be the trend that stakeholder concerns are not addressed until a strike occurs? This happens to be the trend at Makerere University given the frequency of student strikes at the 89-year-old institution.
The strikes have both a positive and negative message that they convey to the public. Strikes reflect badly on the efficiency of top management in managing stakeholder interests and concerns.
Some student strikes could be avoided if top management took the necessary steps to have all stakeholders’ concerns adequately addressed. This means that the views, concerns and fears of stakeholders have to be incorporated with the aim of arriving at a win-win situation, and not merely brushed off as ‘resistance to change’.
Although I identify with the university’s perpetual financial troubles, raising the tuition fee to sh6m is not a good policy and not the best solution for a developing country like Uganda. The country still needs to have many of its populace access higher education for the country to develop. The justification given by those advocating the fee increment is not convincing.
To implement such a policy implicitly declares that ‘access to higher education should be a privilege of the rich. The argument that Makerere is the only university in East Africa that charges low tuition fees should not be at the expense of access to education for majority of Uganda’s poor. Uganda’s majority poor who cannot afford an annual saving of sh6m for tuition fees, (not forgetting welfare costs of accommodation, meals and so forth) are nonetheless entitled to higher education from the state.
With a higher education degree, students from poor backgrounds can liberate themselves from their historical plight by innovatively putting the acquired knowledge and skills to good use. This benefits the individual student as well as the nation.
The Government needs to step in to realistically address the issue of access to higher education for all Ugandans. Although the issue of a loan scheme is yet to be addressed, it would be better to initiate and implement the scheme and other realistic systems of payment before increasing the fees as this would deny the poor access to higher education.
Failure to do that would be a return to a scenario that prompted economic planners such as Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja to agitate for a review and reform of the performance-based access to higher education.
The economic planners claimed that Makerere only benefited children of the rich who accessed good schools. Although the question of whether all the students who accessed these so-called ‘good’ schools were all from affluent families is still highly debatable; their findings pointed to a disproportionate system that excluded many who failed to qualify.
The higher education environment has changed and managers need to be more transparent and accountable to their stakeholders. For an institution like Makerere that has evolved in size to a current student population of about 32,000 of which approximately only 8,000 are government sponsored; involving students and other stakeholders in policy formulations is increasingly becoming indispensable.
Gone are the days when stakeholders, particularly students, were only ‘seen but not heard’. The new breed of fee-paying students are demanding more accountability, transparency and responsiveness by university management.
The admission figures show that power is shifting to the hands of students and their parents who are duty-bound to educate their children in cases where the state is not in position to do so. Thus Makerere University is currently operating under a dual system of governance with public and private stakeholder partnership.
This means that the style of governance has to change and become more democratic and participatory particularly at the decision-making level. It also means that the importance of public relations communication in stakeholder management has to be fully recognised as a strategic communication and management function.
A participatory approach will aid the university to move from a situation of ‘communication anarchy’ characterised by strikes to one of professional ‘communication consensus’ and hence improve on its overall image and reputation. For decisions such as the increment of tuition fees to be implemented, all stakeholders affected by the policy need to be consulted and involved. The stakeholders include students, parents, academic staff, donors and alumni representatives, among others.
The decision of fee incrementshould not be left to university managers and the Government. Lack of transparency and accountability are not sustainable at Makerere University.
The mode of governance at the university has to change and become more responsive to its stakeholders.
This strike preceded an earlier student complaint over an unexplained internship fee of sh600,000. Why should we continue providing education expensively when countries like India are providing it cheaply?.
The question, however, is does it always have to be the trend that stakeholder concerns are not addressed until a strike occurs? This happens to be the trend at Makerere University given the frequency of student strikes at the 89-year-old institution.
The strikes have both a positive and negative message that they convey to the public. Strikes reflect badly on the efficiency of top management in managing stakeholder interests and concerns.
Some student strikes could be avoided if top management took the necessary steps to have all stakeholders’ concerns adequately addressed. This means that the views, concerns and fears of stakeholders have to be incorporated with the aim of arriving at a win-win situation, and not merely brushed off as ‘resistance to change’.
Although I identify with the university’s perpetual financial troubles, raising the tuition fee to sh6m is not a good policy and not the best solution for a developing country like Uganda. The country still needs to have many of its populace access higher education for the country to develop. The justification given by those advocating the fee increment is not convincing.
To implement such a policy implicitly declares that ‘access to higher education should be a privilege of the rich. The argument that Makerere is the only university in East Africa that charges low tuition fees should not be at the expense of access to education for majority of Uganda’s poor. Uganda’s majority poor who cannot afford an annual saving of sh6m for tuition fees, (not forgetting welfare costs of accommodation, meals and so forth) are nonetheless entitled to higher education from the state.
With a higher education degree, students from poor backgrounds can liberate themselves from their historical plight by innovatively putting the acquired knowledge and skills to good use. This benefits the individual student as well as the nation.
The Government needs to step in to realistically address the issue of access to higher education for all Ugandans. Although the issue of a loan scheme is yet to be addressed, it would be better to initiate and implement the scheme and other realistic systems of payment before increasing the fees as this would deny the poor access to higher education.
Failure to do that would be a return to a scenario that prompted economic planners such as Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja to agitate for a review and reform of the performance-based access to higher education.
The economic planners claimed that Makerere only benefited children of the rich who accessed good schools. Although the question of whether all the students who accessed these so-called ‘good’ schools were all from affluent families is still highly debatable; their findings pointed to a disproportionate system that excluded many who failed to qualify.
The higher education environment has changed and managers need to be more transparent and accountable to their stakeholders. For an institution like Makerere that has evolved in size to a current student population of about 32,000 of which approximately only 8,000 are government sponsored; involving students and other stakeholders in policy formulations is increasingly becoming indispensable.
Gone are the days when stakeholders, particularly students, were only ‘seen but not heard’. The new breed of fee-paying students are demanding more accountability, transparency and responsiveness by university management.
The admission figures show that power is shifting to the hands of students and their parents who are duty-bound to educate their children in cases where the state is not in position to do so. Thus Makerere University is currently operating under a dual system of governance with public and private stakeholder partnership.
This means that the style of governance has to change and become more democratic and participatory particularly at the decision-making level. It also means that the importance of public relations communication in stakeholder management has to be fully recognised as a strategic communication and management function.
A participatory approach will aid the university to move from a situation of ‘communication anarchy’ characterised by strikes to one of professional ‘communication consensus’ and hence improve on its overall image and reputation. For decisions such as the increment of tuition fees to be implemented, all stakeholders affected by the policy need to be consulted and involved. The stakeholders include students, parents, academic staff, donors and alumni representatives, among others.
The decision of fee incrementshould not be left to university managers and the Government. Lack of transparency and accountability are not sustainable at Makerere University.
The mode of governance at the university has to change and become more responsive to its stakeholders.